The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has issued guidance to simplify the Title V operating permit renewal process, emphasizing administrative efficiency while maintaining full compliance obligations. The guidance encourages focusing on changes rather than resubmitting unchanged information, but facilities must remain vigilant as renewals can reveal unresolved compliance issues.
Leslie’s rare combination of technical expertise, client relationship skills, and community involvement is remarkable for a Young Professional, even by today’s standards. Late last week, Leslie gratefully accepted a 40 Under 40 award from the American Academy of Environmental Engineers and Scientists (AAEES). We hope you enjoy learning a little more about our colleague at SCS Engineers.
As a Project Manager at SCS Engineers, Leslie leads remediation and redevelopment of complex contaminated sites in South Florida and was an early contributor to PFAS investigation procedures. Her early career projects included national Superfund site research and large-scale investigations of military sites. She also demonstrates her commitment to community and professional development through mentoring and volunteering.
Leslie Smith exemplifies the qualities celebrated by the AAEES 40 Under 40 program and SCS values. She has multiple publications under her belt and holds a B.S. in Civil and Environmental Engineering and an M.S. in Civil Engineering (Environmental Engineering) from Florida State University, as well as a Ph.D. in Civil Engineering (Environmental Engineering) from Louisiana State University.
Leslie has built strong, enduring relationships with major residential and commercial land developers in South Florida, earning trust through straightforward communication and effective project management of large-scale remediation projects, balancing schedules and budgets.
She manages complex environmental assessments and remediation for large-scale redevelopment projects, including a 100+ acre former golf course and agricultural properties, successfully engineering on-site reuse of contaminated soil to reduce costs and environmental impact, thereby converting contaminated sites into residential communities.
Her doctoral research involved pioneering bioremediation at scale by correlating pilot systems with full-scale Superfund site operations, characterizing microbial communities via DNA sequencing, and validating remediation efficacy—work that resulted in peer-reviewed publications and presentations.
Early in her career, Leslie was part of a large-scale site investigation at a former Cold War missile launch complex in Wyoming, addressing severe TCE contamination across a plume spanning 20,000 acres. This project shaped Leslie’s approach to contamination management.
Leslie continues to contribute her expertise to the evolving field of PFAS contamination by assisting Florida’s Department of Environmental Protection in developing Standard Operating Procedures, conducting field assessments at fire training facilities, influencing state regulatory responses, and publishing in industry publications.
Leslie regularly volunteers at Deck the Halls, a community event that supports children in foster care by decorating homes for the holidays.
She also participates in Water Matters Day in Broward County, promoting water conservation through educational booths, giveaways, and activities, and in Baynanza, Miami-Dade’s celebration and cleanup of Biscayne Bay, contributing to ecological restoration efforts.
She mentors K–12 and undergraduate students in STEM education, fostering curiosity and supporting growth through lectures and research guidance. She supports affordable housing initiatives through volunteering with the Appalachian Service Project, Habitat for Humanity, and Bike & Build, aiding families with home repairs and raising awareness of housing issues.
Today’s blog discusses the challenges and opportunities related to the redevelopment of land with idle or abandoned oil wells, also known as orphan wells. At least twenty-eight states currently face the same challenge and are spending federal funds on abandoned well remediation. The majority of the orphan wells are in the Gulf Coast area, including Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Louisiana. Also, the Northern Appalachia area, including Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, New York, and Kentucky, has thousands of wells. For this blog, we focus on California, a state with unique regulatory and land-use considerations.
Due Diligence First
We stress that proximity to sensitive sites isn’t the same as risk, and we support informed, technical assessments and regulatory oversight to enable safe redevelopment, especially in urban areas. When first drilled, many wells in California were likely not in urban areas, but over time, the growth of our cities and towns has shown that they can literally now be in property owners’ backyards as well as underneath residential and commercial buildings. Conducting thorough technical evaluations is essential for safe redevelopment practices.
Understanding Risks and Redevelopment Potential
Let’s address the common misconception that proximity to orphan oil wells near schools, parks, and homes inherently means danger. We understand your concerns and will address public health and environmental risks to ensure redevelopment proceeds safely. Redeveloping former oil-field lands, often vacant lots in urban areas, can boost property values and economic growth while protecting our health through proper well-impact mitigation and access to funding sources.
Addressing Orphan Oil Wells in California (Onshore)
California faces a unique challenge: thousands of legacy oil wells are scattered across urban and rural areas. The key issue is not just their location but how these wells are evaluated, managed, and regulated amid changing land uses. The majority of oil wells are located in the Southern California counties of Kern, Los Angeles, Orange, Santa Barbara, and Ventura due to geological factors. The counties of San Bernardino, San Diego, and Riverside have the fewest number of oil wells.
California Senate Bill 1137 (2022) established health protection zones around sensitive land uses near idle or abandoned wells, reflecting California’s urban growth since many wells were drilled. Proper risk mitigation requires technical clarity on well drilling and conditions, beyond simple location maps.
Regulatory oversight is conducted by the California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM), which enforces stringent standards (California Public Resources Code [PRC] § 3208.1) for well access, integrity, and abandonment. CalGEM can mandate “re-abandonment” to modern standards that emphasize cement isolation, groundwater protection, and long-term monitoring to ensure redevelopment safety. Recognizing these specific regulations helps stakeholders understand the regulatory environment guiding land reuse projects.
Integrating Development and Health Safely
There are successful redevelopment projects in areas with high numbers of abandoned wells, such as Pacific City in Huntington Beach and the 2nd & PCH shopping center in Long Beach. These projects rely on qualified petroleum engineers and geologists who conduct thorough due diligence, including review of historical well records, field verification, vapor and methane assessments, and coordination with regulators.
Where necessary, Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Systems (VIMS) are integrated into project designs to prevent toxic vapors from contaminated soil or groundwater from entering buildings, protecting indoor air quality. Early identification and mitigation during due diligence help protect public health and control costs.
Differentiating Well Types and Funding Mechanisms
Not all idle or orphan wells are the same. You can use CalGEM’s Well Finder to distinguish between well types and operators. Many wells remain under active operators with Idle Well Management Plans and bonding requirements. Truly orphaned wells mean that no responsible operator remains, but California can proceed with state plugging and sealing. These are addressed through a state-run orphan well program with four funding sources:
These funds are specifically for California to support safe plugging and abandonment of orphan wells. (Source: https://conservation.ca.gov/calgem/Pages/State-Abandonments.aspx)
Ensuring Effective Regulatory Enforcement and Collaboration
The Center for Biological Diversity’s 2026 report highlighted sensitive land-use areas near wells, raising public awareness. However, effective risk reduction depends on collaboration among regulators, landowners, developers, environmental advocates, and local governments, fostering trust and shared responsibility.
CalGEM recommends engaging qualified petroleum professionals who are familiar with California’s regulatory framework for the safe, responsible evaluation of legacy wells. Early, transparent evaluations integrated into land-use planning protect communities and enable urban infill and redevelopment without undue fear or delay.
Finding the Appropriate Support to Minimize Risk
We recommend finding an engineering firm, preferably with a background in the petroleum industry and a successful track record in remediating brownfields and performing highly structured due diligence. The engineer will likely rely on the expertise of a geologist or hydrogeologist, depending on the location. You’ll want more than a due diligence consultant; you’ll need, in states like California, a California-licensed professional petroleum engineer (PE) and a California-licensed professional geologist (PG) as well. Assessing risks is complex. Firms like SCS Engineers provide the expertise to evaluate the land, complete the plug-and-abandonment process for the wells, and make properties valuable, sustainable, and useful again.
Author: Senior Project Manager and Geoscientist Tim Rathmann. Confer with Tim or an expert in your area at SCS Engineers, or reach Tim on LinkedIn.
Additional Resources:
This educational webinar explores how critical pressure informs the definition and refinement of a carbon sequestration project’s Area of Review (AoR) under the Class VI permitting framework. The SCS experts explain why some developers are re-evaluating AoR assumptions, how injection-driven pressure propagation can dominate AoR extent, and why project-specific geology (including fluid salinity and basin structure) can make simplified approaches overly conservative, rather than safer.
In this 17-minute session, we compare calculation approaches (Methods 2, 2A, and 3) and emphasize that early, iterative AoR work can reduce regulatory, cost, and public-trust risks.
AoR must account for both plume extent and pressure effects: Beyond the supercritical CO2 plume, pressurization and project critical pressure determine where fluids could migrate upward through improperly plugged/abandoned wells and potentially endanger underground sources of drinking water (USDWs).
Pressure front propagation is often the controlling factor: Pressure can propagate faster and farther than the mobile plume, and may be altered by geologic structures (e.g., faults).
Fluid salinity and density matter: Higher salinity increases fluid density and generally requires more induced pressure to drive vertical migration; real-world salinity profiles can be non-linear and project-specific.
Method selection depends on data and realism: Method 2 is simple but can yield unrealistic outcomes (e.g., zero/negative critical pressure). Method 2A uses a more detailed equation-of-state approach. Method 3 incorporates risk-based computational modeling of flow through a hypothetical, poorly-plugged well and can better handle complex cases.
Timing and iteration reduce downstream costs: Investing early and periodically re-evaluating AOR assumptions improves defensibility and can avoid costly changes after permitting.
Transparency supports outreach: The AoR process and re-evaluations (including public comment opportunities) can be communicated in plain language to build public confidence in drinking water protection.
Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is rapidly transforming the way carbon emissions are reduced. In regions with heavy manufacturing and fossil-fuel power plants, CCS could be essential to sustain operations while managing emissions. Louisiana, Wyoming, West Virginia, North Dakota, Arizona, and Texas have secured Class VI primacy, accelerating the permitting process and opening the door for more CCS deployment. “We’re at a pivotal moment, and states aren’t hesitating to dive in,” says Stephanie Hill, national expert in carbon sequestration and deep well injection at SCS Engineers.
Stephanie advises interested parties to pay attention to CCS trends, which shape staff hiring, Class VI permit processing, and the modeling and monitoring required to support long-term project success.
As leaders in CCS, SCS Engineers has spent over a decade tracking technology advances and regulatory shifts. Now, we’re inviting you to join our free webinar series, where our team will break down the top five CCS trends shaping the future and what they mean for your organization. Whether you’re a state regulator, policymaker, utility manager, or industry executive, these carbon sequestration sessions will equip you with the knowledge to make informed, confident decisions in this rapidly evolving landscape. Here’s a sneak peek at what you’ll learn:
Trend 1: Using Advanced Critical Pressure Modeling to Shrink the Area of Review
Securing a Class VI well permit for CCS hinges on accurately defining the Area of Review (AoR), the underground zone where injected CO2 might impact drinking water sources. The traditional approach relies on a simplified, conservative pressure calculation. But this method can overestimate the AoR by 50 to 100 square miles, inflating project costs, pore‑space needs, monitoring requirements, and stakeholder engagement footprints.
“There’s a better way,” explains Dr. Charles Hostetler, senior project advisor and modeling SME at SCS Engineers. Our advanced critical pressure model tracks the evolution of brine pressures. The result is a more precise and realistic AoR.”
Trend 2: Accounting for Project Interference
Depending on geologic conditions, the pressure front created by CCS deep-well injection can influence conditions well beyond the CO2 plume boundary. With these forces at work, multiple injection projects within the same hydraulically connected reservoir can lead to overlapping pressure fields in the pore space, which could increase the AoR and the risk of CO2-brine migration into the USDW.
As use of CCS deep well injection grows, so does the challenge of accounting for pressures associated with Class I, II, and VI wells in the same region, including those installed or discovered after the AoR was first determined.
SCS Engineers has a plan for that. “When you design your model, think of the bigger picture,” says Charles. “A large, dynamic model allows integration of CO2 and pressure data from neighboring wells to predict potential influence on the AoR.”
Trend 3: Supplemental Permitting: Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a regulatory authority must account for both direct and indirect impacts of Class VI projects. But it is challenging to determine how a project located 3,000 feet below ground might affect the habitat and populations of animals and plants above ground.
SCS Engineers is meeting that challenge by evaluating the relationship between deep subsurface CO2 injection and reasonably certain surface impacts.
“This evaluation will help standardize Class VI operations and species interactions, streamline and accelerate the review process, and develop direct links between projects, impacts, and mitigation,” says Charles.
As CCS activity grows, ESA and NEPA supplemental permitting is emerging as a critical component of project readiness.
Trend 4: Representing Well Corrosion in Modeling
Localized and uniform corrosion of the injection well could create potential leakage pathways for the CO2 plume. Applicants rely on corrosion modeling to anticipate when and where well materials may begin to degrade and to select compatible construction materials for the well.
“The drawback is that model predictions only go so far,” says Stephanie. “That’s why we turn to real-world data for AoR models.”
Working with a metallurgy lab, SCS Engineers obtained a forensic analysis of a real-world tubing failure that was predicted to withstand anticipated conditions. This insight helps account for model uncertainty, which could prevent tubing failure and the incurred costs of operational downtime and tubing replacement.
As more Class VI wells come online, data‑driven well integrity modeling is becoming an essential protective measure.
Trend 5: Integrative Monitoring for AoR Re-evaluation
Compliance with CCS regulations requires monitoring the CO2 plume spread and recalibrating the AoR every 5 years. “Integrated monitoring programs that use multiple methods are trending,” says Tara Gross, project advisor on the SCS Deep Well Initiative Team.
Early baseline data lay the foundation for monitoring and defining how AoR models are recalibrated going forward. Data gathered during pre-injection testing, such as well integrity and seismic, groundwater, surface, and subsurface conditions, are essential to support time-based comparisons, identify subtle subsurface changes, and track plume behavior over time.
Innovate with SCS Engineers
Join Stephanie, Charles, Tara, and other SCS national experts in upcoming webinars to stay ahead of industry trends and avoid costly surprises as CCS projects move from concept to execution!
Watch the Carbon Sequestration Webinar Series here!
The future of sustainable agriculture is taking shape on 400 dairy, poultry, hog, and beef farms across the U.S. Farmers from California to Massachusetts are integrating anaerobic digestion into their waste management practices to slash emissions and generate biogas for on-farm energy savings and revenue streams. Their impact is nothing to cluck at. Collectively, these farms reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 14.8 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent, and generated the equivalent of 3.29 million MWh of electricity.
“On-farm anaerobic digestion is becoming a more common component of the U.S. livestock model,” says Dr. Erik Anderson, Senior Project Manager and National Expert on Anaerobic Digestion at SCS Engineers. “Farmers use covered lagoons to sustainably manage waste, optimize their operations, and monetize waste streams.”
In the U.S., 43% of livestock farms with anaerobic digestion use covered lagoons as their digesters because lagoons are common and already facilitate biological decomposition. While a passive lagoon digester is a good low-cost option, its performance can be as fickle as the weather.
“Most passive lagoons only achieve about 60% of a material’s potential, sometimes lower,” says Erik.
Focusing on five elements, SCS’s hybrid approach, led by Erik, controls system conditions to boost biogas production and system efficiency. “A well-designed hybrid system closes the performance gap without overbuilding.”
Feedback and Control Loops
Digesters give “warning signs” that microbial conditions are imbalanced, such as changes in alkalinity, pH, volatile fatty acid, chemical oxygen demand, and overall methane production and concentrations in the biogas. Automated feedback systems read these warning signs and monitor essential parameters. “Real-time data enables active management to resolve problems quickly,” Erik says, “It is the rooster that wakes us up.”
Insulation and Heating
Many passive lagoons suffer from seasonality. When digester temperatures dip below 68°F, microbial activity slows significantly. Erik’s cure for these winter blues includes an insulated floating cover and an insulated lagoon bottom (typically made of reinforced or high-density polyethylene or clay-lined) that protects against the season’s colder temperatures.
“Insulation is only useful if there is heat to retain. If cost-effective, pre-heating lagoon waste would be the first design consideration…and it is often the most impactful,” says Erik.
Energy recovery systems that preheat the incoming lagoon feed are smart additions to new builds and retrofits. These systems either recover waste heat produced onsite through daily operations or economize the heat in the final effluent stream to cool and heat the two streams simultaneously.
Mixing
Passive lagoons do not typically incorporate mixing, often resulting in the accumulation of solids at the bottom and/or “fat” caps that form along the lagoon surface. SCS’s hybrid design incorporates mixing (and heating) and/or zone recirculation in either the staging tank or in the first lagoon of a two-lagoon system to create a homogenous flow and avoid microbial dead zones. This design also tolerates more total solids, generating more biogas.
“Mixing helps break down materials faster and transfers heat evenly throughout the system,” says Erik. “Properly designed mixing helps create a stable environment, which reduces the impacts of environmental changes, so microbes can thrive, improving digestion rates.”
Organic Loading Rates
How much volatile solids are fed into the digester is like Goldilocks trying porridge: it’s best when it’s just right. “Many slurry streams are too dilute, and given the sheer size of the digester, it could handle more material than it’s being fed,” Erik says. “I see that as leaving money on the table.”
While commercial digesters can run the design gamut from covered lagoons to high-solids and “dry” digesters, the nature of the project will determine the best option. It may be possible to take on higher concentrations of organic waste after evaluating project goals, mixing, material staging, feed control, and other parameters.
A hybrid design optimizes the build to the system’s upper limit, the sweet spot of maximum biogas production for the smallest footprint and the lowest price tag. Testing the effluent would reveal how much organic loading the system can accept, and thus, how much biogas it can optimally produce.
“If a system has capacity, it can take on more waste products to make more biogas and increase revenue,” says Erik.
Sustainable Energy Use
With minor adjustments, such as removing particulate and contaminants like H2S, biogas can be burned in onsite boilers to heat buildings, equipment, or the incoming digester slurry. Depending on the farm’s size and design, biogas can be converted into electricity for on-site or grid use via a combined heat and power plant, or purified to become renewable natural gas. Erik’s hybrid design is flexible to accommodate all energy generation pathways and goals.
“Mainly, the hybrid design encourages sustainable energy use,” says Erik. “Why not leverage our waste material and use the lagoon digester and onsite waste heat to its full potential? We have the opportunity to reduce farm costs and increase sustainability for the greater good.”
Meet Dr. Erik Anderson at the International Biomass Conference and Expo. Dr. Anderson will be on a panel session discussing hybrid anaerobic digestion entitled “Data Driven Strategies for High Performance Biogas Systems” on Wednesday, April 1 (1:00 pm – 2:30 pm).
As biogas and RNG projects scale, data-driven decision-making is becoming essential to maximizing performance, reliability, and returns. This session explores how operators are using high-quality data, advanced analytics, and AI-enabled tools to optimize anaerobic digestion, improve productivity, and reduce operating costs. The panelists examine practical applications ranging from real-time process monitoring and AI-enhanced operations to chemistry-based optimization and hybrid reactor design, offering actionable insights into how data and technology can unlock higher efficiency and resilience across modern biogas systems.
You may also reach him at SCS Engineers or visit Anaerobic Digestion for Industry and Agriculture.
A New Reality for Existing Buildings
For decades, energy efficiency policies focused primarily on new construction. Existing buildings (especially older buildings) account for a large share of greenhouse gas emissions in the urban setting. Building Performance Standards (BPS) are state- and locally driven regulations that require owners of existing buildings to meet measurable energy or emissions performance targets over time—not just report data, but also achieve energy-efficiency objectives.
Since 2019, BPS policies have expanded rapidly across the United States, as shown in the map above (Courtesy of IMT). What began as voluntary benchmarking programs has evolved into mandatory, enforceable requirements with escalating targets and financial penalties for non‑compliance. More than 50 U.S. cities and several states have now adopted or committed to BPS policies, fundamentally changing the risk profile of owning and operating commercial real estate.
For building owners—especially those with portfolios spanning multiple jurisdictions—the challenge is clear: how do you comply without overspending, disrupting operations, or getting caught off guard by penalties and rushed retrofits?
What Are Building Performance Standards—and Where Do They Apply?
Building Performance Standards set minimum performance thresholds for energy use or greenhouse gas emissions. These thresholds typically tighten over time, pushing buildings toward deep efficiency improvements and, in many cases, long‑term decarbonization goals.
Today, BPS requirements exist at both the state and municipal levels, including:
The key takeaway for owners is simple: BPS policies are becoming the baseline expectation for building performance nationwide, not an exception.
What Is Required of a Building Owner?
While details vary by jurisdiction, most BPS programs require owners to:
Failure to comply is no longer symbolic. Penalties are real and material, often including:
For large buildings or portfolios, these fines can quickly reach six or seven figures annually, turning energy performance into a balance‑sheet issue—not just a sustainability goal.
Competitive Advantage From Regulatory Burden
Forward‑thinking owners are reframing BPS from a compliance obligation into a strategic asset—those who act early gain flexibility, optionality, and financial upside. Key benefits include:
Lower Operating Costs
Targeted HVAC, lighting, controls, and envelope improvements routinely deliver 15–30% annual energy savings, reduce maintenance, and improve system reliability.
Stronger Asset Value
High‑performance buildings command:
Risk Mitigation
Early action avoids:
Health, Comfort, and Productivity
Improved ventilation, moisture control, and thermal comfort reduce absenteeism and enhance occupant performance—often the largest “hidden” financial upside for commercial tenants.
What This Means for Portfolio Managers
For owners and asset managers with buildings across multiple BPS jurisdictions, the challenge isn’t just compliance—it’s coordination.
A fragmented, city‑by‑city response leads to:
A portfolio‑level strategy, on the other hand, allows owners to:
This is where experienced advisors add the most value—helping owners see the full portfolio picture, not just the next deadline.
How Building Owners Can Capitalize on BPS Requirements
Successful owners are taking a phased, data‑driven approach:
Many jurisdictions now support this approach through Building Performance Hubs, utility programs, and technical assistance to lower upfront costs and reduce execution risk.
Funding the Path to Compliance
Compliance does not have to mean self‑funding every upgrade. Owners can leverage:
When coordinated correctly, these tools can significantly reduce—or even eliminate—the net cost of compliance.
Conclusion: The Cost of Waiting Is Higher Than the Cost of Acting
Building Performance Standards mark a permanent shift from voluntary sustainability to mandatory performance. For building owners, the question is no longer if action is required, but how and when.
Owners who act early gain control over costs, timelines, and outcomes. Those who delay risk fines, rushed decisions, and stranded assets. In a market where regulations are tightening and capital is increasingly performance‑driven, energy performance is now a core business strategy.
The smartest owners aren’t just complying, they’re using BPS as a lever to protect asset value, improve cash flow, and future‑proof their portfolios.
Look for an independent engineering consultant such as SCS Engineers with no financial interest in equipment sales, construction, or energy performance contracts. Your consultant’s expertise and vendor agnosticism provide objective, more valuable recommendations to owners selecting implementation strategies. Find a qualified engineering consultant near you.
To learn more about running facilities more efficiently and maximizing energy and water conservation, please visit our Facility Energy Management page.
About our Author: Doug Latulippe is a Project Director and one of our National Experts on Energy Management. He is responsible for work related to SCS’s air quality, greenhouse gas (GHG), and sustainability initiatives for public and private commercial businesses, industrial facility owners, real estate clients, utilities, and renewable energy project developers. Reach out to Doug on LinkedIn.
Doug’s experience includes managing energy portfolios, including capital and operating budget development, power generation, demand-side project and program development, bill management and reporting, and utility incentive program management. He also performed energy audits and GHG reporting for Fortune 500 companies.
As part of his power generation experience, he patented a solid-fuel gasification system designed for environmental mitigation and pollution control. The USEPA has recognized Doug for his extensive work with the ENERGY STAR program.
Doug is speaking at the A&WMA conference, Data Center Insights and Innovation, on Tuesday, March 24, 2026. Check out his session with David Greene at 11:40 am – 12:00 pm entitled The Data Center and Its Critical Role for Sustainability.
The actual text of EPA’s final rule rescinding the 2009 Endangerment Finding was published this morning. Several other documents in support of the final rule also were posted on the EPA website: Final Rule: Rescission of the Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding and Motor Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards Under the Clean Air Act | US EPA
Most of the rule’s immediate effects will be on motor vehicles. The regulations directly affected are 40 CFR Parts 85 (Control of Air Pollution from Mobile Sources), 86 (Control of Emissions from New and In-Use Highway Vehicles and Engines), 600 (Fuel Economy and Greenhouse Gas Exhaust Emissions of Motor Vehicles), 1036 (Control of Emissions from New and In-Use Heavy-Duty Highway Engines), 1037 (Control of Emissions from New Heavy-Duty Motor Vehicles, and 1039 (Control of Emissions from New and In-Use Nonroad Compression-Ignition Engines)
The final rule does not affect criteria pollutant emission standards, mobile-source air toxics standards, or vehicle fuel-economy standards (also known as Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards).
How will the rescission of the Endangerment Finding affect the solid waste industry? To the extent that heavy-duty trucks and equipment become less expensive with no requirements to limit GHG emissions, solid waste companies will see savings. However, major CAA regulatory programs such as New Source Performance Standards for landfills and operating permits for landfill gas control systems are unlikely to be affected, at least in part, because, at the federal level, the threshold triggers for these programs are based on non-methane organic compounds rather than greenhouse gas emissions.
It remains to be seen if EPA will follow through on changes to the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program under 40 CFR Part 98 as proposed last September. Among those changes would be to eliminate GHG reporting for 46 industrial categories, including municipal solid waste landfills and industrial waste landfills. Some of those affected have asked the EPA to continue requiring GHG reporting because they do not want to be subject to numerous state reporting programs, including New York’s new program that takes effect in 2027, as well as California, Oregon, and Washington, which already have GHG reporting. Some states that require GHG reporting directly reference 40 CFR Part 98 and/or rely on the EPA’s electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool (eGGRT).
Another aspect of the rescission of the Endangerment Finding is any effect that may have on any preemption of state laws outside the motor vehicle context. Several states are not waiting for the EPA in this regard, requiring GHG reporting and disclosures as a matter of state law.
The recission final rule is based on the EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act as a legal matter. Although EPA “continues to harbor concerns regarding the scientific analysis contained in the Endangerment Finding . . . . the Administrator is not basing this action on a new finding under CAA section 202(a)(1). Rather, we conclude that the EPA lacks statutory authority to resolve these questions under CAA section 202(a)(1).” Section 202(a)(1) covers emission standards for new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines.
Boiled down to its essence, EPA is saying that it never had the legal authority from Congress to regulate GHGs under the Clean Air Act. It says that the CAA addressed air pollution having local and regional impacts, not pollution that may affect global climate change. By taking this approach, the EPA avoids addressing climate science altogether.
Under the Supreme Court’s “major questions” doctrine, President Obama couldn’t regulate greenhouse gas emissions outside the fence line as part of the Clean Power Plan in the electric utilities sector. President Biden couldn’t require COVID-19 vaccinations or forgive student loans en masse. President Trump might not have been able to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act because such major questions require specific congressional authorization. EPA cites the major questions doctrine as requiring rescission of the 2009 Endangerment Finding.
The goal appears to be to secure the Supreme Court’s affirmation of the EPA’s current views before Mr. Trump leaves office. The Court has considered aspects of EPA’s GHG regulations from time to time since the 2009 Endangerment Finding was published. Of course, the Court said that EPA could prepare an Endangerment Finding, but it never directly considered the finding itself. If the Court ultimately rules that the CAA does not authorize the EPA to regulate GHGs, one assumes that, until Congress passes a new law addressing GHGs, there will be no such regulation at the federal level.
If you have questions about federal, state, or local air quality regulations, reporting, or verification, please contact the experts at SCS Engineers.
SCS Engineers is pleased to welcome Christopher (Chris) Monahan as our new Vice President and General Counsel. With a Professional Engineering background, a Juris Doctor, and an LL.M. in Business Law, Chris brings a rare combination of technical, legal, and business expertise to our leadership team. He is based at our Long Beach, CA headquarters.
“Chris Monahan’s broad and multidisciplinary legal background spans construction, engineering, claims and litigation, M&A, renewable energy, labor and employment law, environmental compliance, real estate, international law, intellectual property, and technology, making him an ideal fit with our vision to be the leading provider of environmental solutions – delivering lasting outcomes for our clients and employee-owners,” says SCS President Curtis Jang.
Chris joins SCS with deep leadership experience across the renewable energy and engineering sectors. He has led legal departments and overseen enterprise risk management, compliance, contracts, litigation, IRA tax strategy, and SEC filings for organizations involved in solar and clean‑energy development. His background also includes managing large, multi-disciplinary legal teams and supporting complex projects across multiple jurisdictions.
When asked about joining SCS Engineers, Chris says, “It’s an honor to join SCS Engineers. I’m excited to contribute to an organization that protects our planet with integrity and purpose. The company’s vision, its focus on environmental solutions, its reputation for technical excellence and innovation, and its employee-owned culture position the company to do remarkable things.”
In addition to his professional accomplishments, Chris enjoys surfing, triathlons, and spending time with his family. He shared that his family is very enthusiastic about this new chapter and looks forward to becoming part of the SCS Engineers family—both personally and professionally.
Chris holds an LL.M in Business Law from the University of Sydney, a Juris Doctor from Loyola Law School, an MS in Civil Engineering from UCLA, Bachelor’s degrees in Engineering (Cal State Long Beach) and Accounting (Pepperdine), and graduate certificates in Enterprise Risk Management and Construction Management from UCLA. He is licensed as a California attorney, a U.S. Patent Attorney, a Solicitor in Australia (inactive), and a Professional Civil Engineer in California.
EBJ launched its Business Achievement Award program in the previous century and continues the tradition in 2026 with the awards presented on the Environmental Business Journal website and live at the Environmental Industry Summit XXIV in April 2026.
SCS Engineers for Kern County Waste Diversion
A state-of-the-art covered aerated static pile (CASP) facility, designed by SCS Engineers and located next to Kern County’s Shafter-Wasco Landfill in California, can divert 100,000 tons of organic waste from landfills annually. The facility includes 32 CASP bunkers and can produce 40,000 tons of finished compost annually. CASP composting offers faster decomposition, better temperature and moisture control, and significantly reduced odors. The modern facility supports Kern County and its incorporated cities in meeting organic waste recovery and procurement plans, waste diversion from landfills, and greenhouse gas reduction goals. It supports California’s overarching Senate Bill 1383 mandates while strengthening Kern County’s leadership in sustainable materials management. By transforming organic materials, yard trimmings, food scraps, and other biodegradable materials into nutrient-rich compost, the end-product supports local properties and agriculture, enriches community landscapes, and reduces landfill use, improving regional air quality. This facility is far more than just another improvement to Kern County’s solid waste infrastructure—it is a cornerstone of its commitment to sustainability and response to landmark legislation driving the state’s organics diversion and zero-waste initiatives. Learn more about this project.
The Climate Change Business Journal solicits the CCBJ Achievement Awards in late 2025. A committee of CCBJ staff determines final awards, CCBJ editorial advisory board members, and regular contributors. You’ll find them on the CCBJ website.
SCS Engineers for Business Model Innovation: Computational Pressure Model for CCS Well Permitting
SCS Engineers, in collaboration with the U.S. EPA, developed a time-based Computational Pressure (CP) Model to improve Class VI well permitting for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). Unlike traditional methods that assume immediate hydrostatic equilibrium, this model calculates brine migration as a function of time and overpressure, providing a more realistic, site-specific approach to defining the Area of Review. The Time-Based CP Model offers these advantages:
SCS and EPA introduced a spatially distributed Endangerment Potential Map using thousands of data points to visualize migration risk across a site. The map shows that the risk from any single borehole is about one in 10 million, providing a significant margin of safety. Learn more about this innovation for Carbon Capture Sequestration.
Corporate Headquarters
